1) Our new genome-wide association study for IQ (nature.com/articles/s4146…) included the peripheral result that some genes linked to higher IQ are also linked to higher likelihood of poor eyesight. Here's how the media bollocksed up the coverage of it in almost every way:
2) The Telegraph turned a genetic correlation of .29 into "those who were more intelligent were nearly 30 per cent more likely to have genes indicating they require reading glasses" (!?!?): telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/0…
3) The Telegraph also described a sample size (44,480) that's nowhere near the actual sample size of the study (300,486). None of us have any idea where this number came from. It was repeated in several other stories. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
4) The lead author of the study is Gail Davies. This article (iflscience.com/health-and-med…) says "Gail Davis". This article (theweeklyobserver.com/people-wear-gl…) says "Gaye Davis". Because, well, fuck it.
5) The Guardian thought that it would be a good idea to include a finger-wagging virtue-signal about how "linking intelligence to DNA can quickly lead to bogus "race science". Thanks guys. theguardian.com/science/2018/m…
6) The headline of this one is remarkable, given the result they're talking about is just a genetic correlation: startsat60.com/health/everyda…
7) This one says the study was published in Nature (it was actually published in Nature Communications), which I suppose is a bit like getting a surprise upgrade to first class: eu.usatoday.com/story/news/hea…
8) Anyway, it's all pretty trivial of course, but just example number 8 million of how this sort of non-specialist science journalism is just a pointless waste of everybody's time. Fin!
